Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LifeSpanner t1_iu5kfy8 wrote

Reply to comment by formerPhillyguy in Piet Mondrian artwork displayed upside down for 75 years by Superbuddhapunk

The appreciation of artistic creation is a function of 1) the artist’s ability to connect the viewer with the art and 2) the viewers ability to connect with the art. Just because you don’t appreciate it doesn’t mean it lacks value or is undeserving of appreciation. It just means that your specific capacities for appreciation don’t apply here.

For the record, having never heard of them before your comment, and just skimming their work online, I enjoy the visual aesthetic of Soutine. And I found your comment terribly unoriginal and pointless, past the fact that it pointed me to a new thing to enjoy.

You should probably evaluate whether what you’re saying has any value before the next time you go to comment about how valueless the things others enjoy are.

2

formerPhillyguy t1_iu5pbr0 wrote

Maybe I should have explained more in depth of what I meant as garbage. Anything can be called art and someone will like it. I can tape a banana to the wall, call it art and attach a $30K price to it and somebody will buy it, if I am famous enough or there is a viral story behind it. According to the guide at the Barnes museum, Sautine was a failing artist who sold his paintings for next to nothing, until Barnes bought some. He didn't buy them because of the quality, only to use them as samples in his art school. Because Barnes bought some, others thought that Sautine's work must be a good investment, not because they liked it, but because someone of stature in the art world bought some. It doesn't mean they're good.

1

LifeSpanner t1_iu5snnm wrote

You literally just restated the last thing you said. I repeat: saying art is “good” or not misses the point of art. Either you connected with it or appreciated it in some way, or you didn’t.

I think buying art with the intention of prospecting its future value is commodifying the object. That is a capitalist process which is, at its heart, incongruent with the philosophy of art and creative expression. At that point, the object is no different than any other commodity, so stating that it’s good or bad at being monetarily valuable becomes a more concrete result of its being bought and sold than it’s merit as an artistic work.

To speak of a work’s artistic merit as “good” or not speaks solely to your ability to receive something that the artist communicated. Whether you enjoyed or appreciated that is a valid opinion, but not a concrete fact.

2

formerPhillyguy t1_iu6py9j wrote

> I think buying art with the intention of prospecting its future value is commodifying the object. That is a capitalist process which is, at its heart, incongruent with the philosophy of art and creative expression. At that point, the object is no different than any other commodity, so stating that it’s good or bad at being monetarily valuable becomes a more concrete result of its being bought and sold than it’s merit as an artistic work.

This is exactly what I mean.

2

TheHatedMilkMachine t1_iu7g3pi wrote

Tape a banana to a wall bruh. Go for it. Maybe you’re an artist. Having the balls to actually do that is art.

0

art4idiots t1_iu7uqox wrote

That whole banana on the wall saga has been one of my most difficult art experiences. I'm still trying to find my footing. Originally, I was angry because while I could read [what I thought was] the intention, "the contemporary art market can encourage slapdash, poor quality work and while it may be good for a moment just rots in short time," it seemed to me to be the type of statement and project that would intentionally garner negative attention and why would this artist throw so much shade and force so many of his peers to defend their work and their passion.

Then i found out the artist was Maurizio Cattelan ... and all of a sudden I felt like the joke was on me the whole time. I fucking adore Maurizio Cattelan and think he's an incredible artist. Now I'm thinking, is that the point?!? I didn't like it until I found out it was him and now I'm like "shit, it's definitely worth 30k lol" with art it's true that the artwork is just one tiny piece of what you buy, what you really buy is a connection to the artist, and with contemporary living artists it's a way to support them and help continue their career...

so is that what he meant?? Did he intend for all of this inner turmoil I'm going through? If it was just some dude I would have totally just brushed it off as shit, but his status has absolutely swayed my understanding of the work, and now I like it??? But it still is a punch line for art haters... but it's also a lightning rod and he can withstand it...? I don't know I'm still so lost on this one. The one thing I know for sure, the art that sticks to my ribs like this ends up being my favorite. Art is supposed to make you think, make you feel, make you question yourself and your reality and by God he's certainly done that for me...

I know you didn't ask for all that lol i think I've just needed to rant about that for awhile now

2

TheHatedMilkMachine t1_iu8pm2q wrote

In direct opposition to what one of the dullards wrote above, the fact that you went through that whole process including this comment is the point of art. The people who say “a kid could’ve done that” aren’t wrong but the part they’re missing is SO WHAT

1

art4idiots t1_iu9gfex wrote

Yea, it's never the gotcha they think it is. I think most kids are better at creating art in general than most adults. They aren't jaded or hindered by self doubt or expectation. Unfortunately, at a certain point, most people lose that ability. I keep a piece or two from all of my family's childhood art. I have a wonderful drawing of a bridge in a city with a shark swimming in the water underneath. That cousin is now an engineer who designs and builds bridges around the world. The art isn't "special" in any way other than a wonderful insight into who he is, and I love that about art.

Edit: I should add that the bridge is meticulously drawn with a ruler on graph paper. He was 8.

2